They have established, as part of the overall eligibility criteria, the qualifying period of service for the PJM as 31 January 1957 (Independence Day) to 12 August 1966.

John, they also got this wrong:

“for service ... during the 2nd Emergency and Confrontation time period”.

The PJM does not recognise service by Commonwealth troops during the 2nd emergency at all! It is for service during the latter stages of the 1st Emergency and Confrontation.

The second Emergency period was after the pull out by Britain and, depending on which source you consult, either started in the late-60's or early to mid-70's.

Can they get nothing right?

Thu Oct 12, 2006 1:25 am

BarryF

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2721
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom

LaurieB wrote:

Can they get nothing right?

Nope!

Lord Whitty is a fundamental Blairite (ergo not the brightest star in the sky), not a Brownite, which may expalin why he was trying to be smart and divisive as between British veterans. Never a smart thing to do. Blair allowed the Arctic Medal to become some sort of badge - Brown on the other hand (allegedly) supports veterans and sponsored Veterans Day (or was that Dr Reid's idea?).

Reading Lord Whitty's very politicised question, I suspect he was briefed to ask it by a civil servant who is trying to undermine the Pingat Jasa Malaysia! It has that touch of confusion and inadequate briefing about it!

I am surprised that his Lordship had not read the PJM Citation:

"This medal is awarded to the peacekeeping groups amongst the Commonwealth countries for distinguished chivalry, gallantry, sacrifice or loyalty in upholding Peninsula of Malaya or Malaysia sovereignty during the period of Emergency and Confrontation."

And that he did not understand the difference between who can authorise what in respect of medals for service in a British Colony as opposed to for an Independent (of Britain) Sovereign Nation.

As for Lord Triesman's response he did get close - except for the date (and there, but for thr Grace of God, go I).

He quotes from the PJM Eligibility Terms which do refer to the 2nd Emergency. I have no problem with his reply.

Last edited by BarryF on Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:46 am; edited 1 time in total_________________BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia

Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:44 am

John Cooper

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2158
Location: Suffolk

BarryF wrote:

Reading Lord Whitty's very politicised question, I suspect he was briefed to ask it by a civil servant who is trying to undermine the Pingat Jasa Malaysia.

Barry

Why do you think he was asked by a CS Barry?

What mileage is there in it for Lord Whitty and his Cronies?

If it was a Civil Servant suggesting this then that is going against THE CIVIL SERVICE CODE as they are supposed to be NON POLITICAL, perhaps someone can ask Lord Whitty why he asked such a question and his reason for doing so.

_________________--------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------

Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:53 am

BarryF

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2721
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom

John Cooper wrote:

Why do you think he was asked by a CS Barry?

What mileage is there in it for Lord Whitty and his Cronies?

If it was a Civil Servant suggesting this then that is going against THE CIVIL SERVICE CODE as they are supposed to be NON POLITICAL, perhaps someone can ask Lord Whitty why he asked such a question and his reason for doing so.

Lord Whitty asks a question to which he already knows the answer. As a peer, he is not asking the question on behalf of a constituent.

Any 'mileage', if indeed that was the aim, is in creating a division between veterans at a time when the Rebuttal and Update and Petition are being considered.

I would not get carried away with the Civil Servant aspect - I didn't intend implying any sinsiter activity or wrongdoing. It was a turn of phrase indicating that Lord Whitty was asking a question that was poorly formulated and politically charged ... a bit like the civil servants' stuff to us. It was as simple as that.

But you do have to ask why he asked the question in the Lords when the answer is already in the public domain via the Ministerial Statement (put there by the Government of which he is a member) and also in the published Eligibility Criteria. That was the point I was trying to make. There has to be a reason other than the innocent search for information ... or else he's not been paying attention!

_________________BarryF, who fought for the Right to Wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia

Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:25 am

John Cooper

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2158
Location: Suffolk

Anyone got an email address for Lord Whitty or should that be The Witty Lord?

_________________--------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------

Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:30 am

whitemouse

Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 24

John Cooper wrote:

Anyone got an email address for Lord Whitty or should that be The Witty Lord?

_________________Merdeka, Merdeka, Merdeka,
from the HD Committee and its decision.

Wed Feb 14, 2007 1:26 pm

GerryL

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 423
Location: West Sussex

The mythical rules explode yet again

I have recently sent the attached letter to Mr Touhig.
Dear Mr Touhig

I know that you are aware of the 2 rules that the HD Committee hold sacred in their cov-ert deliberations as to who is allowed, and not allowed, to wear medals bestowed upon them by foreign states. I refer to the 5 Year rule and the double medalling rule. Woven through these rules like the zig zag pattern on a viper’s back is the distinction they make to foreign medals awarded by nations that have HM as Head of State and whose medals are permissible for Civil Servants to accept and wear without restriction. An example of this is the entirely gratuitous 25th Anniversary of Antigua and Barbuda Medal recently presented to the Earl and Countess of Wessex, their Household staff and a number of Civil Servants in and around the HD Committee’s sphere of influence, including serving members of that Committee – serving members of the very Committee which invokes those same rules to deny ordinary men and women the right to wear a medal they have earned in the steaming jungles in the Far East. On the other hand are those medals awarded by a nation that does not have HM as Head of State. Clearly Malaysia falls into this latter category.

You might, therefore, be interested in the attached extract from the London Ga-zette of 1953. This shows two awards granted unrestricted acceptance for wear from for-eign nations to British Army officers. The awards were in recognition of distinguished services in the cause of the Allies during the 1939-45 War. These awards were thus made from foreign countries 8 years after the event to which they related. So much for the 5 year rule!

Furthermore, they were to former British Service personnel who would have al-ready received at least 1 British medal for that service (1939-45 War Medal, and proba-bly the Defence Medal as well as anything from one to five medal Stars for different Campaigns). Now bang goes the double medal rule. Neither of the countries making these awards recognises HM the Queen as their Head of State, and so bang goes the ca-veat that allowed the Antigua and Barbuda Medal!

Thus there is no hiding place for those who wish to convince you and the duly elected Parliament that the rules they mean-spiritedly applied to deny British veterans the right to wear the Pingat Jasa Malaysia are sacrosanct.

There are other interesting parallels with the PJM case. The examples in the at-tached LG (and I have others going back to 1950 thereby maintaining the breach of the 5 year rule), are to retired personnel – as are those entitled to accept, but not to wear, the PJM. But the HD Committee would have us believe that their rules treat us as if we were still “Servants of the Crown”. Clearly not the case in the attached example.

So what are we to make of the 1953 case in question? Well, the awards were lim-ited in number and to senior officers, rather than to a large number of lesser mortals who qualify for the PJM (with a few exceptions). This smacks of elitism and class distinction – prevalent in the 1950’s but supposedly irrelevant in the 21st century.

Secondly, the awards were from European nations whose Royal Families would have some level of relationship with the Windsor dynasty thanks to the inter-marriage skills of Queen Victoria’s children. Malaysia is a Monarchy whose King has no such re-lationship. The country, after all, is still relatively fresh out of Colonial status. Perhaps the HD Committee’s deliberations are clouded by memories of Empire – a bygone age seen through rosy spectacles made more rosy by the large areas of pink on the old maps.

We are led to believe that British citizens live in a modern, egalitarian meritoc-racy. Comparing the way we have been treated over the PJM issue with similar events of over half a century ago, it is difficult to accept that we have moved very far down that road.

What many do not know on this forum is that Gerry has spent weeks trawling the London Gazette for snippets of information, so as JockF said recently all may appear quiet on The Western Front but most of the action really is behind enemy lines, so dig those heels in and pull on that Tug Rope, the ribbon as we know has crossed the line we are just awaiting the collapse of their anchor man..............

_________________--------------------------------------------------------------
HD Committee: Amateurs in a Professional World
---------------------------------------------------------------

Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:26 pm

Semengo13

Joined: 13 Feb 2006
Posts: 442
Location: York

Terrific stuff Gerry and clearly the product of a lot of work. Irrefutable evidence to all fair minded people.

At this point certain Civil Servants retire to darkened room in panic trying to come up with another get-out statement. "Ah Ah" says Sir Humphrey, "what about a "no medal rule" backdated to 1066 !!"